First homily of Pope Francis: "to be the custos, the protector" "especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important"

[Bartolome_Casas]

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-franciss-inaugural-mass-full-text

Pope Francis’s Inaugural Mass Homily - Full Text

Homily of the Holy Father at the Inauguration of his Papal Ministry 19 March 2013:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I thank the Lord that I can celebrate this Holy Mass for the inauguration of my Petrine ministry on the solemnity of Saint Joseph, the spouse of the Virgin Mary and the patron of the universal Church. It is a significant coincidence, and it is also the name-day of my venerable predecessor: we are close to him with our prayers, full of affection and gratitude.

I offer a warm greeting to my brother cardinals and bishops, the priests, deacons, men and women religious, and all the lay faithful. I thank the representatives of the other Churches and ecclesial Communities, as well as the representatives of the Jewish community and the other religious communities, for their presence. My cordial greetings go to the Heads of State and Government, the members of the official Delegations from many countries throughout the world, and the Diplomatic Corps.

In the Gospel we heard that “Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary as his wife” (Mt 1:24). These words already point to the mission which God entrusts to Joseph: he is to be the custos, the protector. The protector of whom? Of Mary and Jesus; but this protection is then extended to the Church, as Blessed John Paul II pointed out: “Just as Saint Joseph took loving care of Mary and gladly dedicated himself to Jesus Christ’s upbringing, he likewise watches over and protects Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, of which the Virgin Mary is the exemplar and model” (Redemptoris Custos, 1).

How does Joseph exercise his role as protector? Discreetly, humbly and silently, but with an unfailing presence and utter fidelity, even when he finds it hard to understand. From the time of his betrothal to Mary until the finding of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem, he is there at every moment with loving care. As the spouse of Mary, he is at her side in good times and bad, on the journey to Bethlehem for the census and in the anxious and joyful hours when she gave birth; amid the drama of the flight into Egypt and during the frantic search for their child in the Temple; and later in the day-to-day life of the home of Nazareth, in the workshop where he taught his trade to Jesus.

How does Joseph respond to his calling to be the protector of Mary, Jesus and the Church? By being constantly attentive to God, open to the signs of God’s presence and receptive to God’s plans, and not simply to his own. This is what God asked of David, as we heard in the first reading. God does not want a house built by men, but faithfulness to his word, to his plan. It is God himself who builds the house, but from living stones sealed by his Spirit. Joseph is a “protector” because he is able to hear God’s voice and be guided by his will; and for this reason he is all the more sensitive to the persons entrusted to his safekeeping. He can look at things realistically, he is in touch with his surroundings, he can make truly wise decisions. In him, dear friends, we learn how to respond to God’s call, readily and willingly, but we also see the core of the Christian vocation, which is Christ! Let us protect Christ in our lives, so that we can protect others, so that we can protect creation!

The vocation of being a “protector”, however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God’s creatures and respecting the environment in which we live. It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about. It means caring for one another in our families: husbands and wives first protect one another, and then, as parents, they care for their children, and children themselves, in time, protect their parents. It means building sincere friendships in which we protect one another in trust, respect, and goodness. In the end, everything has been entrusted to our protection, and all of us are responsible for it. Be protectors of God’s gifts!

Whenever human beings fail to live up to this responsibility, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way is opened to destruction and hearts are hardened. Tragically, in every period of history there are “Herods” who plot death, wreak havoc, and mar the countenance of men and women.

Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be “protectors” of creation, protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment. Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world! But to be “protectors”, we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then, also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness!

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST…

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…

Here I would add one more thing: caring, protecting, demands goodness, it calls for a certain tenderness. In the Gospels, Saint Joseph appears as a strong and courageous man, a working man, yet in his heart we see great tenderness, which is not the virtue of the weak but rather a sign of strength of spirit and a capacity for concern, for compassion, for genuine openness to others, for love. We must not be afraid of goodness, of tenderness!

Today, together with the feast of Saint Joseph, we are celebrating the beginning of the ministry of the new Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, which also involves a certain power. Certainly, Jesus Christ conferred power upon Peter, but what sort of power was it? Jesus’ three questions to Peter about love are followed by three commands: feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Let us never forget that authentic power is service, and that the Pope too, when exercising power, must enter ever more fully into that service which has its radiant culmination on the Cross. He must be inspired by the lowly, concrete and faithful service which marked Saint Joseph and, like him, he must open his arms to protect all of God’s people and embrace with tender affection the whole of humanity, especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important, those whom Matthew lists in the final judgment on love: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Only those who serve with love are able to protect!

In the second reading, Saint Paul speaks of Abraham, who, “hoping against hope, believed” (Rom 4:18). Hoping against hope! Today too, amid so much darkness, we need to see the light of hope and to be men and women who bring hope to others. To protect creation, to protect every man and every woman, to look upon them with tenderness and love, is to open up a horizon of hope; it is to let a shaft of light break through the heavy clouds; it is to bring the warmth of hope! For believers, for us Christians, like Abraham, like Saint Joseph, the hope that we bring is set against the horizon of God, which has opened up before us in Christ. It is a hope built on the rock which is God.

To protect Jesus with Mary, to protect the whole of creation, to protect each person, especially the poorest, to protect ourselves: this is a service that the Bishop of Rome is called to carry out, yet one to which all of us are called, so that the star of hope will shine brightly. Let us protect with love all that God has given us!

I implore the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, Saints Peter and Paul, and Saint Francis, that the Holy Spirit may accompany my ministry, and I ask all of you to pray for me! Amen.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Here’s a link to a Fox News report on Pope Francis’ homily at his inaugural mass:

foxnews.com/world/2013/03/19/thousands-fill-st-peter-square-for-pope-francis-installation/

Their headline is:

“Pope Francis opens ministry with inaugural Mass, urges crowds to protect poor, weak”

 

[Rence]

Yes, it was a wonderful first homily and one that will set the standard.

he must open his arms to protect all of God’s people and embrace with tender affection the whole of humanity, especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important, those whom Matthew lists in the final judgment on love: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Only those who serve with love are able to protect!

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Yes, it was a wonderful first homily and one that will set the standard.

It is as if Mother Teresa has been elected pope.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

It is as if Mother Teresa has been elected pope.

if she were a taller, Argentinian guy…

In a world that is focused in greed and self-interest above all else, his message is certainly nice to hear. We live materialistic lives when others starve. We abort babies because they are inconvenient. We attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage because we want tor fruits of labors we are not willing to work for.

I hope he is successful.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

if she were a taller, Argentinian guy…

In a world that is focused in greed and self-interest above all else, his message is certainly nice to hear. We live materialistic lives when others starve. We abort babies because they are inconvenient. We attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage because we want tor fruits of labors we are not willing to work for.

I hope he is successful.

Our friend above mentions the “attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage.”

I’m not sure how the “attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage” fits into the theme of Pope Francis’ homily. That baffles me. The advocates of state-recognized gay marriage say that they are just working for equality under the law for all law abiding citizens. What does that have to do with greed, materialism, selfishness, hatred, envy, pride, and the failure to protect the others “especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important”?

The U.S. Supreme Court has said for decades now that all laws must have a “secular purpose.” On that basis, I assume that Court will have no choice but to rule that gays have a right to have state-recognized marriages, even though religious organizations will be allowed to maintain their practice of marrying only they view as being qualified for marriage per religious doctrine.

To me, state-recognized gay marriage does not change anything about real marriage, just as state-recognized religious liberty (1st Amendment) does not invalidate the “fullness of the truth” found only in one institution, the Catholic Church. In other words, the untruths promulgated by secular governments have zero effect on the real truth.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Our friend above mentions the “attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage.”

I’m not sure how the “attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage” fits into the theme of Pope Francis’ homily. That baffles me. The advocates of state-recognized gay marriage say that they are just working for equality under the law for all law abiding citizens. What does that have to do with greed, materialism, selfishness, hatred, envy, pride, and the failure to protect the others “especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important”?

The U.S. Supreme Court has said for decades now that all laws must have a “secular purpose.” On that basis, I assume that Court will have no choice but to rule that gays have a right to have state-recognized marriages, even though religious organizations will be allowed to maintain their practice of marrying only they view as being qualified for marriage per religious doctrine.

To me, state-recognized gay marriage does not change anything about real marriage, just as state-recognized religious liberty (1st Amendment) does not invalidate the “fullness of the truth” found only in one institution, the Catholic Church. In other words, the untruths promulgated by secular governments have zero effect on the real truth.

I knew someone would bite. We couldn’t agree that it was a good homily, but you had to complain, especially when the Pope has been a known crusader in Argentina against homosexual unions and adoption.

So you disagree with the Church on this issue, apparently. The Chuirch has said simply allowing civil unions is not ever okay, any more than tolerating abortion, under the guise that “the Church doesn;t have to perform abortions.” It matters in every way, shape, or form.

By your logic, no immoral law matters (legalized abortion, slavery), since the Church will always have the truth. Yes, and in the mean time, we risk losing more souls to Hell. You really want to be that glib with your fellow man? I can’t be that indifferent to watching people potentially burn forever.

The poorest of the poor are, as Blessed Maria of Calcutta told us, those spiritually poor and bereft. That includes all those who have been led into darkness by Satan. Don’t cherry pick your paupers to fit your “civil unions are okay” agenda. His concern for the poor refllects all those in need, not just the ones you deem worthy.

What is worse for a man - to be destitude financially, or to be spritually destitute?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

So you disagree with the Church on this issue, apparently. The Chuirch has said simply allowing civil unions is not ever okay, any more than tolerating abortion, under the guise that “the Church doesn;t have to perform abortions.”

By your logic, no immoral law matters (legalized abortion, slavery), since the Church will always have the truth. Yes, and in the mean time, we risk losing more souls to Hell.

Logically and philosophically, there must be some difference between gay relationships which involve two willing mentally competent adults peacefully exercising their liberty rights under the Constitution, and slavery and abortion which involve violence and/or death with one aggressor and one victim.

The Church should enforce Church discipline within the Church. But, as I see it, it doesn’t do that, or does it barely at all. The biggest blaring case is how the Church has had for 40 years a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding lay people’s use of artificial contraception. But we know also from survey and personal observation that Catholics–even weekly mass-going Catholics, are no different from the pagans as regards divorce and remarriage, having abortions, having sex during dating, and on and on. For years and years conservative Catholics have been trying to get nominally Catholic universities to be authentically Catholic again, mostly to no avail. The Catholic Answers Live radio show came into existence mainly because so many priests and bishops were not teaching the faith accurately or fully.

Thus, it seems reasonable that the Church focus on two things:
(1) Internal discipline regarding people within its bosom;
(2) Evangelization and conversion to membership for those outside its bosom. I believe this is the traditional Catholic approach to “being in the world but not of the world.”

In any case, are we Catholics supposed to overthrow the U.S. Constitution? That U.S. Constitution is a secular constitution for a secular state, as any one can see just be reading it. Some South American constitutions to this day still have explicit references to God and the Catholic Church. But the U.S. Constitution instead just has the First Amendment, which puts all religions and even non-belief on equal footing. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has said over and over again that every law must have a “secular purpose” their phrase).

Again, are we Catholics going to amend the Constitution to undo the First Amendment and replace it with an amendment requiring all laws to conform to the objective morality taught by the Catholic Church? Or, if we can’t get the votes for the amendment, will we get our guns and mount up our horses like the “Cristero” rebel fighters in Mexico in the 1920s? Issue after issue of my Knights of Columbus magazine in 2012 featured information on that attempt by nominal Catholic ranch owners to overthrown the Mexican government in the 1920s, as depicted in the Hollywood movie “For Greater Glory.” I couldn’t help but conclude that the Knight of Columbus leadership wanted us to see ourselves in a life-or-death fight with the Federal Government. I guess they just wanted us to vote out the members of the social democratic party. But I thought it was so dangerous and reckless to imply that violent revolution was now justified in the USA. The U.S. Civil War proved that violent revolutions are no longer allowed in the USA, and instead that all change must come by peaceful, democratic means.

Am I going against the Church? I don’t think so. I uphold all the Church’s teachings, moral and dogmatic. But is a lay Catholic obligated to support the political strategies of some bishops, or even all bishops? Are their political strategies of a nature that all lay people must endorse them? Pope Francis in his early talks stressed that the Church’s mission is not political, but spiritual.

Thus, the Church has a right, duty and mission to bring all peoples into the Church, and to teach gay peoples that they should refrain from gay sex.

I don’t think any Catholic is obliged to endorse and support the political campaigns that bishops may choose to undertake to establish or repeal a certain State law. Jesus and the Apostles made no efforts to change the State. Rather, their focus was 100% on converting souls, bring them to repentance, and bringing them to the saving waters of Baptism and the saving body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Again, in the context of the U.S. Constitution, how do we justify laws that establish Catholic moral teaching as the law of the State. That would be making the Catechism the Constitution. Won’t the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Baptists, the Scientologists then want the secular government to pass laws to enforce their moral beliefs? Won’t the Baptists want to re-institute the Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption? Won’t the Scientologists want to ban psychiatry? Won’t the Mormons want to return to their sacred polygamy? I think the legal scholars all agree that in the U.S.A., all laws must have a “secular purpose.” But the Church does not have and cannot have a secular purpose.

It seems to me that many “conservatives” long for a return of the Church-State union, or, at least, a Church-Party union with a One-Party Rule, such as existed in Franco’s Spain (1937-1975). As I understand the Vatican II Council, it forbade a return to the “Catholic State.” John Paul II constantly said that the Faith “should be proposed but never imposed.”

Well, that was all pretty long and boring I guess. Well, maybe someone will find some value in it. If not, there’s always basketball to watch on TV. Adios!

 

[fix]

Logically and philosophically, there must be some difference between gay relationships which involve two willing mentally competent adults peacefully exercising their liberty rights under the Constitution, and slavery and abortion which involve violence and/or death with one aggressor and one victim.

And what about the children? Who protects their rights?

 

[fix]

Our friend above mentions the “attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage.”

I’m not sure how the “attempt to redfine social insitutions like marriage” fits into the theme of Pope Francis’ homily. That baffles me. The advocates of state-recognized gay marriage say that they are just working for equality under the law for all law abiding citizens. What does that have to do with greed, materialism, selfishness, hatred, envy, pride, and the failure to protect the others “especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important”?

He talked about the holy Family. Children need protection too. You think redefining the family is not central to this issue?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

He talked about the holy Family. Children need protection too. You think redefining the family is not central to this issue?

The comment by our honorable Friend above led me to think about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

Based on that, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that all federal and state laws must pass the “secular purpose” test. In short, laws cannot be enacted in order to establish morals prescribed by a religion.

Now, I am not defending the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments as if they are sacred writ. Our super patriot fellow citizens DO regard the Constitution in that way, but I don’t. I don’t think any Catholic can really love the Constitution since it puts all religions on the same level. Still, I live in the USA, and am a citizen thereof, so I accept that the Constitution is the basis of the USA, and is likely to be for a long time to come. I don’t want to join any new Confederate movement to secede from the Union.

And so, the upshot of the First Amendment is that no religious group is allowed to impose its definition of marriage on the whole nation through legislation.

Catholic bishops have the religious liberty right to impose the Catholic definition of marriage on people who freely choose to join or remain in the Catholic Church. But to impose that on non-Catholics is forbidden by the First Amendment. The Catholic Church retains the religious liberty right to work to convert Gays, Baptists, Communists, Fascists, Muslims, Ayn Rand-ians, etc., into members of the Catholic Church. But impose elements of the Catholic Faith on non-Catholics through State or Federal Law? That’s forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, especially the First Amendment. That’s why the Supreme Court will soon say that gay Americans have a right to be married under state law and federal law. Churches will be able to not marry gays, and will, per the First Amendment, be able to declare that such marriages are not real marriages in the eyes of God and the Church.

When Gays marry and the bear or adopt children to raise, they do not harm children at a rate higher than heterosexual couples who raise children. If being a good parent were a requirement of raising children, then millions of Americans would have their children taken away tomorrow. Why do so many kids in inner city school perform so badly? It is about 99% due to parental neglect. So we could seize all those children instantly. Furthermore, most child sex abuse in the family context happens when a heterosexual couple are the parents. Should the state ban heterosexual marriage because it sometimes leads to child sex abuse? Ridiculous, right? Why then ban homosexual marriage in State Law because of the belief that this will lead children be hurt because it will lead to them being accepting of homosexuality, or, on occasion, sexual abuse? Remember, the Supreme Court says that every law must have a SECULAR PURPOSE. Preventing God from destroying the USA as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah is not a secular purpose. That’s a religious belief, which may be true, but which the First Amendment forbids the government in the USA from enacting into law.

Yet, I see too that is futile to point all this out. The Catholic bishops themselves have dedicated themselves not so much to mission ad gentes, and not so much to* intra-church discipline*, but to getting the state to enforce church discipline on the whole nation, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I am the “heretic” for wanting to return to the practice of Jesus and the Apostles of working exclusively to bring individuals souls to the saving waters of Baptism and the saving body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. (See the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20) The Church, prior to the State-ification of Christianity by Emperor Constantine and subsequent Roman Emperors, did not try to change the laws or leaders of the State. Now that’s almost all the the bishops and lay Catholic activists do.

So, I am the dissenter. There was a movement in the late Middle Ages called the Spiritual Franciscans. To a degree, I feel like I am one of those. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraticelli The Spiritual Franciscans were crushed by the Church and the State.

I will cease promoting my heretical views in this Forum. Until today I didn’t realize how out of step my pre-Constantine views were with the current views of the bishops.

But I am glad to see this. I will remain a Catholic. I will remain quiet, in my pew. I will keep my eyes on the magnificent painting of the Holy Trinity that is on the ceiling above the altar in my parish church. I will, inside myself, remain sure that the Holy Trinity does not want to enforce Catholic morality on pagans with the force of the laws of the State. But when the bishops launch another campaign to unelect a president as they did in 2012 with their Defend Religious Liberty campaign (instead of waiting for courts to rule on a law that hadn’t even gone into effect yet-and still hasn’t gone into effect), I will raise my eyes up to the Holy Trinity and remember young St. Joan of Arc tied to the stake as she burned and burned.

I may have said all this better over on a related thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=766636&page=2

 

[fix]

The comment by our honorable Friend above led me to think about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

Based on that, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that all federal and state laws must pass the “secular purpose” test. In short, laws cannot be enacted in order to establish morals prescribed by a religion.

Now, I am not defending the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments as if they are sacred writ. Our super patriot fellow citizens DO regard the Constitution in that way, but I don’t. I don’t think any Catholic can really love the Constitution since it puts all religions on the same level. Still, I live in the USA, and am a citizen thereof, so I accept that the Constitution is the basis of the USA, and is likely to be for a long time to come. I don’t want to join any new Confederate movement to secede from the Union.

And so, the upshot of the First Amendment is that no religious group is allowed to impose its definition of marriage on the whole nation through legislation.

Catholic bishops have the religious liberty right to impose the Catholic definition of marriage on people who freely choose to join or remain in the Catholic Church. But to impose that on non-Catholics is forbidden by the First Amendment. The Catholic Church retains the religious liberty right to work to convert Gays, Baptists, Communists, Fascists, Muslims, Ayn Rand-ians, etc., into members of the Catholic Church. But impose elements of the Catholic Faith on non-Catholics through State or Federal Law? That’s forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, especially the First Amendment. That’s why the Supreme Court will soon say that gay Americans have a right to be married under state law and federal law. Churches will be able to not marry gays, and will, per the First Amendment, be able to declare that such marriages are not real marriages in the eyes of God and the Church.

When Gays marry and the bear or adopt children to raise, they do not harm children at a rate higher than heterosexual couples who raise children. If being a good parent were a requirement of raising children, then millions of Americans would have their children taken away tomorrow. Why do so many kids in inner city school perform so badly? It is about 99% due to parental neglect. So we could seize all those children instantly. Furthermore, most child sex abuse in the family context happens when a heterosexual couple are the parents. Should the state ban heterosexual marriage because it sometimes leads to child sex abuse? Ridiculous, right? Why then ban homosexual marriage in State Law because of the belief that this will lead children be hurt because it will lead to them being accepting of homosexuality, or, on occasion, sexual abuse? Remember, the Supreme Court says that every law must have a SECULAR PURPOSE. Preventing God from destroying the USA as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah is not a secular purpose. That’s a religious belief, which may be true, but which the First Amendment forbids the government in the USA from enacting into law.

Yet, I see too that is futile to point all this out. The Catholic bishops themselves have dedicated themselves not so much to mission ad gentes, and not so much to* intra-church discipline*, but to getting the state to enforce church discipline on the whole nation, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I am the “heretic” for wanting to return to the practice of Jesus and the Apostles of working exclusively to bring individuals souls to the saving waters of Baptism and the saving body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. (See the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20) The Church, prior to the State-ification of Christianity by Emperor Constantine and subsequent Roman Emperors, did not try to change the laws or leaders of the State. Now that’s almost all the the bishops and lay Catholic activists do.

So, I am the dissenter. There was a movement in the late Middle Ages called the Spiritual Franciscans. To a degree, I feel like I am one of those. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraticelli The Spiritual Franciscans were crushed by the Church and the State.

I will cease promoting my heretical views in this Forum. Until today I didn’t realize how out of step my pre-Constantine views were with the current views of the bishops.

But I am glad to see this. I will remain a Catholic. I will remain quiet, in my pew…
I may have said all this better over on a related thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=766636&page=2

Children have rights. Exposing them to this evil ideology is contrary to common sense and reason. There is nothing in history that leads anyone to believe two same sex persons can be parents.

This is not about sectarian issues but certainly faith must inform your reason if you claim to be Catholic.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Children have rights. Exposing them to this evil ideology…

Per the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, laws cannot mandate or prohibit any ideology. Even during the Cold War, the U.S. never prohibited any U.S. citizen from attending Communist Party meetings and working to spread the ideology of Communism. The Communist Party USA continues to this day. The Supreme Court has said, following the tradition of the Founding Fathers, that the government may not interfere in the “marketplace of ideas.” The Supreme Court has said that every law must pass the “secular purpose” test.

All this doesn’t hurt or stymie God’s Church however. No force in the universe can hurt or stymie God’s Church, since it is backed up by God Himself. We always remain free to witness to the truth by our words and lives.

The USA has been a non-Catholic country since its founding, and it still is.

According to some books I’ve read, Catholics today have been misled and confused by the heretics (Protestants, Mormons, Freemasons, Jews) who are very influential in secular government and political parties in the USA. Most or many of the key U.S. Founding Fathers were zealous Freemasons.

The USA will one day be more. The proud nations of the world come and go. But God and Heaven are eternal.

 

[bellasbane]

I knew someone would bite. We couldn’t agree that it was a good homily, but you had to complain, especially when the Pope has been a known crusader in Argentina against homosexual unions and adoption.

So you disagree with the Church on this issue, apparently. The Chuirch has said simply allowing civil unions is not ever okay, any more than tolerating abortion, under the guise that “the Church doesn;t have to perform abortions.” It matters in every way, shape, or form.

By your logic, no immoral law matters (legalized abortion, slavery), since the Church will always have the truth. Yes, and in the mean time, we risk losing more souls to Hell. You really want to be that glib with your fellow man? I can’t be that indifferent to watching people potentially burn forever.

The poorest of the poor are, as Blessed Maria of Calcutta told us, those spiritually poor and bereft. That includes all those who have been led into darkness by Satan. Don’t cherry pick your paupers to fit your “civil unions are okay” agenda. His concern for the poor refllects all those in need, not just the ones you deem worthy.

What is worse for a man - to be destitude financially, or to be spritually destitute?

According to this report, Pope Francis was not opposed to civil unions for same sex couples in 2010 when he was Archbishop of Argentina. When interviewed by the press, his spokesman states that the position of the Church was to defend the legal definition of marriage, but they did not wish to discriminate against same-sex unions or appear fanatical.

Here is the original quote in Spanish:

–Federico Wals, vocero de Bergoglio, explicó a Veintitrés los detalles de la posición eclesiástica: “La postura del arzobispo es en clara defensa del sistema jurídico, de la ley de matrimonio, los tratados internacionales y los artículos del Código Civil que se refieren siempre a la unión entre hombre y mujer. Un matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo no puede ser tal, ya que no cumple con los requisitos fundamentales: están violando la ley. Nos oponemos por una cuestión jurídica, no por motivos religiosos. No buscamos discriminar a las uniones de personas del mismo sexo. No tenemos una mirada fanática. Lo que estamos pidiendo es que se respeten las leyes”, detalló.

–¿No cree que las leyes se pueden cambiar a medida que las sociedades se transforman?

–Es cierto, pero hay que ver qué tipo de modificación de la ley. Estamos abiertos a un debate para tratar las modificaciones que se van dando. Creemos que hay que plantear un proyecto de unión civil más completo del que existe, pero no de matrimonio. Queremos que se discuta en el Congreso. No estoy en condiciones de decir qué derechos implicaría la unión civil entre personas del mismo sexo. Habría que ver qué se propone. Hay que establecer un debate en el buen sentido. Entendemos que los tiempos han cambiado y ellos también, por supuesto, tienen derecho: hay que buscarle la forma jurídica que lo enmarque.

infonews.com/nota.php?id=80541&bienvenido=1

This is MY translation with a little help from Google translate:

Federico Wals, spokesman for Bergoglio, told Veintitrés [an Argentinian Magazine] the details of the Church’s position: “The position of the Archbishop is clear, defense of the legal system, of the laws of marriage, international treaties, and articles of Civil Code, which always refer to the union between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex cannot be such, because it does not meet the basic requirements: they are breaking the law. We are opposed to this based on legal reasons, not for religious motives. We are not seeking to discriminate against unions of persons of the same sex. We do not want to look fanatical. What we are asking is that the laws are respected”, he explained.

He does not believe laws can change as societies are transformed?

True, but you have to see what kind of change in the law. We are open to debate to discuss the changes that are occurring. We believe that we must propose more comprehensive civil unions than currently exist, but not marriage.
We want it to be discussed in Congress. I am not able to say what rights a civil union between persons of the same sex would have. We should see what is proposed. We need to establish a debate in a good way. We understand that times have changed and they, of course, have the right: we must seek the legal form in which it is framed, but not marriage.

Of course, NONE of this has been confirmed by the Vatican. However, Radio Mudo reported this about Liliana Negre de Alonso, an Argentine Senator:

Negre de Alonso promoted a civil union bill, as an alternative conciliating both positions. But this bill had been rejected by the activists in favor of marriage, because it prevented the gay couples from adopting children.
radiomundoreal.fm/Groundbreaking-Decision?lang=en

According to Wikipedia:
Negre de Alonso is a devout Roman Catholic follower of Opus Dei, and has opposed liberalising the law on contraception and abortion.[1] She heads the Global Action Network of Legislators and Governors for Life and the Family, bringing together several ‘pro-life’ legislators in Europe and Latin America. She is also against gay marriage.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

According to this report, Pope Francis was not opposed to civil unions for same sex couples in 2010 when he was Archbishop of Argentina. When interviewed by the press, his spokesman states that the position of the Church was to defend the legal definition of marriage, but they did not wish to discriminate against same-sex unions or appear fanatical.

I believe the State, being so fundamentally different in nature from God’s Church, cannot really do anything other than set up laws regarding “civil unions.” That is, even the “Law of Marriage” found in the Code of Statutes of the State of Maryland (to name just one state as an example) really creates nothing but “civil union” laws, regardless of the gender of the spouses.

Only the Holy Church has the REAL laws of marriage. They are found in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Every U.S. state has, in its so-called “marriage” statutes a provision that allows either spouse to abandon the marriage for any trivial reason. Is that part of of God’s marriage? Not at all! Thus, no state in the U.S. has marriage laws.

Really, when you get down to it, the U.S. states just have Shack Up Laws. Once states have removed the “Indissolubility” element, does it still deserve to be called “marriage”? I don’t think so. That is just a Shack Up License, then. See “Indissolubility of Sacrament of Marriage in Mystery of the Redemption of the Body,” by Pope John Paul II ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb99.htm

It seems like we Catholics would clear up a lot of confusion if we only called a thing a “marriage” if it was established under Canon Law, or some similar body of law that enforces the “Indissolubility” element of marriage. We Catholics would be more honest and less confused if we acknowledged plainly that ANY so-called “marriage” established under a legal system that does not recognize or enforce the “Indissolubility” element of marriage is not a marriage at all.

Yes, all this means that all the U.S. states redefined marriage 30 or 40 years ago, when the introduced the no-fault marriage laws. We lost this battle a long time ago. But, marriage remains untouched and un-redefined in God’s Holy Church, so all is well.

 

[bellasbane]

I believe the State, being so fundamentally different in nature from God’s Church, cannot really do anything other than set up laws regarding “civil unions.” That is, even the “Law of Marriage” found in the Code of Statutes of the State of Maryland (to name just one state as an example) really nothing but “civil union” laws.

Only the Holy Church has the REAL laws of marriage. They are found in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Every U.S. state has, in its so-called “marriage” statutes a provision that allows either spouse to abandon the marriage for any trivial reason. Is that part of of God’s marriage? Not at all! Thus, no state in the U.S. has marriage laws.

Really, when you get down to it, the U.S. states just have Shack Up Laws. Once states have removed the “Indissolubility” element, does it still deserve to be called “marriage”? I don’t think so. That is just a Shack Up License, then. See “Indissolubility of Sacrament of Marriage in Mystery of the Redemption of the Body,” by Pope John Paul II ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb99.htm

I totally agree.

The marriage laws in this country are a joke. Furthermore, it is absurd to even consider that a sacrament is something our politicians can decide anything about. All unions are just civil unions unless blessed by a priest.

I think the Pope was more concerned with protecting children than anything else.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

IF the both believes that civil unions are a state matter and confer legitimate protected rights on indivudals, but somehow makes the leap that these rights disappear when the same couples wants their legal right to adopt children, he is mistaken, and in for a rude awakening.

The Church is notinvolved in state sponsored adoptions any more than they are state sponsored civil unions. The logic doesn’t follow at all to support one (which endorses personal sin among oractiving homosexuals) and oppose the other (which endorses personal in raising children without proper parental roles).

I suspect clarity from the Holy Father will be forced as a result of all this talk in the press, and I suspect he will not endorse either. But if he does, he will lose immediate credibility with logicians on both sides of the issues given the obvious lack of logic in the two opposing beliefs.

 

[fix]

IF the both believes that civil unions are a state matter and confer legitimate protected rights on indivudals, but somehow makes the leap that these rights disappear when the same couples wants their legal right to adopt children, he is mistaken, and in for a rude awakening.

The Church is notinvolved in state sponsored adoptions any more than they are state sponsored civil unions. The logic doesn’t follow at all to support one (which endorses personal sin among oractiving homosexuals) and oppose the other (which endorses personal in raising children without proper parental roles).

I suspect clarity from the Holy Father will be forced as a result of all this talk in the press, and I suspect he will not endorse either. But if he does, he will lose immediate credibility with logicians on both sides of the issues given the obvious lack of logic in the two opposing beliefs.

The spin is just starting. I do not believe everything I read. The left want to impute their agenda to the pope.